America’s first ‘First Gentleman’?

Oh no I couldn’t possibly. No, no, no, no. No, never. I don’t need it. I don’t want it. What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand? I wouldn’t, I couldn’t, I shouldn’t. Not me. Not now. I said n………oh, well if you insist:

Hillary Clinton, the darling of the Democratic Party, is under growing pressure to make a late bid for the White House in 2004 from supporters who believe that only she can defeat George W Bush.

There will be no shortage of Americans willing and eager to step up and testify about the depths of loathing this woman incites in ‘fly-over country’. I am sure they would be right. But it would be foolhardy to ignore all those legions of baby-boomers with retirement on their minds. You don’t have to be liked to win elections (see either of Messrs.T.Blair or J.Chirac for details).

Let’s see. Complain about Hillary pubicly from 1992-2000, and get an IRS audit. Funny how that worked. Just like Nixon. I guess that she did learn from her experience as a young lawyer on that impeachment committee. She learned how to repeat Nixon’s abuse of the IRS. Then there was the travel office firings, and all of those employees were acquitted of the FALSE charges brought against them by the Clintons, primarily by Hillary. And of course, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that sent Monica to the White House (nevermind that she was the daughter of a long time Democratic contributor, those rascally Republicans sent her). Please.

As far as her feminist credentials are concerned, other than supporting the “correct” issues, she really has none. She did not earn her way to the top as an independent woman, she arose to political stardom the old fashioned way: she married it. Just like Mary Bono and Elizabeth Dole. But the feminists will complain about those two “marrying into” their politcial fame, but not Hillary. Can we say “Double standard?” Yes, I think we can.

The timeline in her book contradicts the timeline in the book by Sidney Blumenthal, so one of them is lying, or perhaps both.

please pardon my cynicism, but there is no way hillary is going to run in 2004. her campaign is predicated on the democrats losing in 2004. bill clinton made terry mcaullife the president of the democratic national committee for one reason only: to make sure the 2004 democratic candidate wins the primaries in as divisive a manner as possible, thereby splitting the party, and then loses the general election and so clear the way for hillary in 2008. by 2008 the democratic faithful will be so disillusioned and desperate that they’ll rally round the old standard and flock to hillary like flies to a dung heap

She’s by far the eviller of the Clinton partnership. He’s basically a good ol’ boy who went in to politics because it’s a great way to pick up chicks. She, on the other hand, has greed, a lust for power and a sense of personal entitlement better suited to medieval royalty.

She turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 in less than a year by “reading the Wall Street Journal.” She was, by all accounts, the author of the White House Travel Office scandal. She was behind the improper request for, and subsequent vanishing of, over 900 FBI dossiers on Republican opponents. She hatched a scheme to sell seats on U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in return for political contributions. Some of her activities as a lawyer were very smelly indeed. By even the most elementary calculations, she’s vindictive, grasping and a whopping great liar.

And this is just a sampling of the mainstream, as-reported-on-CNN stuff. You want to get into anecdote and rumor, at least some of which is likely to be true, and she may be the nastiest piece of work we’ve seen on the American political stage in a long, long time.

I think you have her basic plan Akay. The ideal situation for Hillary is to have the Democrats get stomped in ’04 so she can ride to the rescue in ’08.

However, there is one factor that makes a run in ’04 more likely. She is up for re-election to Congress in ’06. Her re-election to the Senate is not guaranteed, and if she fails there she has no chance at the White House. Thus, she has to decide between taking the risk on a difficult presidential run now versus an easier presidential run later after a possibly dicey Senate run.

I’ll believe a Clinton candidacy in 2004 when I see it. There are eight or nine other candidates in the Democratic race already. Not only would they not step aside for Mrs. Clinton, but some of them would immediately start pointing out that very little was done about terrorism on her husband’s watch. It’s a very nasty charge that has the added advantage of being true.

I’m not convinced that G. W. Bush is headed for a landslide at all, and recognize that Mrs. Clinton stirs up more enthusiasm with two key constituencies (feminists and blacks) and any of the candidates now in the race. Bear in mind, though, that in her political career she has won precisely one election, in an overwhelmingly Democratic state against a very weak opponent after several boom years during which her husband was President. And, the biggest advantage she has now is still that everyone knows her name. This is an advantage that all Presidential candidates lose eventually, because the campaign is so intensively covered. I expect her to wait.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Hillary is extremely competent. That is precisely why she is so worrisome. Many of us have believed she was the real evil genius pulling the puppet strings for 8 years anyway. The only reason her femaleness counts is because there are so many people who will vote based on gender with no real understanding of what they are buying into.

She’s far too smart to run this time unless Bush does something really, really stupid. She wrote her expose book to get all the dirty linen out and over with so it will be stale old news by 2008; she’s also probably getting a lot of cash into her personal war chest.

I very much hope the Republicans run Condi against her. Not only is Condi smarter; she’s also someone less likely to abuse power. And for those who vote on such things, she matches Hillary’s gender card and trumps with a race card.

The only thing Condi may lack is the kind of ruthlessness it will take to go head to head with Hillary. They need to season her with the VP position if they want a viable candidate.

I agree with Scott Pedersen and akaky. I don’t think she’ll want to take a chance in 2004. Since the Democrats are weak, relative to Pres. Bush I can’t see them winning 2004 even if Hillary ran.

I think she’ll wait until it’s more of a sure thing. Meanwhile, she’ll use the anger the Dems. feel in 2004 to make herself the early favorite of the Dems. for 2008.

Nationally, with Pres. Bush out of the way, the chances she’ll be elected will be better in 2008. Just watch how she and her husband manipulate things.
She’ll pretend support for the Dems. in 2004, but she knows she’ll be a lot stronger if the Dems. lose in 2004.

My favorite professor in law school was Hill’s Whitewater counsel. I’ve done just about everything I can think of to cajole him into telling me the thruth about the whole affair, but he is far too slippery for that.

However, this summer I did press him about Hill’s risible account of the fabled Clinton years. He admits “she’s not the most trustworthy person,” but then hastens to add, “which politican is?”.

He ment that to be rhetorical, but I have an answer and a hope: Rudy G. for pres in 2008.

California has to take baby steps and start with Ahnuld – the majority of its voting population can’t tell fiscal sobriety from Madonna’s bra size, and a fiscal moderate with some liking for Milton Friedman is the best the state can do until the voters are better educated. The country as a whole is ahead of CA on the learning curve; it can do better than Rudy.

Perhaps there is no doubt in the mind of anyone living in Belfast about Mrs. Clinton’s competence, but the record of her involvement in public policy during her husband’s administration suggests there should be.

Her one major initiative, the health care reform package, though mostly designed by others was managed by Mrs. Clinton with phenomenal incompetence, featuring her trademark disdain for views other than her own, political tin ear, and reflexive blaming all problems on someone else. The Clinton administration took office at a time of widespread consensus that the American health care system had to be fixed somehow, yet by the time Mrs. Clinton was done with the subject it was the one thing most repsonsible for ending the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

Mrs. Clinton is quite skilled at the mechanics of running a campaign. This is not the same thing as being able to handle the immense responsibility of the Presidency, or the less significant burdens of the Senate. The difference is obscured because so much of the American media has become used to covering politics as entertainment, and election campaigns are generally much more entertaining than governance.

Incidentally, speculation about Condoleeza Rice running for the Presidency has been around for years, and that’s all rubbish too. She entered office with a career mostly as an academic and a Bush family courtier, and though the novelty of a black woman National Security Adviser and Ms. Rice’s undoubted physical beauty earned her much goodwill a Bush family courtier is what she is still. Her performance as National Security Adviser is focused on preparing short-term briefings and providing emotional support for a President badly out of his depth on foreign affairs. The other things — and they are important things — past NSAs have done she either does not do or does not do particularly well. Like Mrs. Clinton her post-administration career might feature a seat in Congress, where the damage she could do would be limited, but she is not a potential President.

scott, i would agree with you about 2006 if she was running anywhere else but in new york. here incumbents regard re-election as one of their civil rights. still, it might happen. she lucked out running against lazio instead of rudy in 2000 and all democrats have a problem here when running for statewide office. maybe we’ll catch a break in 2006

Who Are We?

The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.